Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Ai Champdany Industries Ltd on 1 December, 2021
1
OD-8
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Central Excise)
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No. GA/2800/2017)
In
CEXA 29 of 2017
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA IV, COMMISSIONERATE
Vs
AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 1st December, 2021.
Appearance:
Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv.
Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv.
...for the respondent.
The Court : This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section
35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the 'Act' in brevity) and is directed against
the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the learned Customs, Excise and
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in
Appeal No.E/263/2007-SM arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.139/Kol-IV/06
dated 28.12.2006 and Order-in-Original No.46 Joint Commr./C.EX/Kol-
IV/Adjn/2006 dated 28.09.2006.
The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of
law for consideration :
a) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not considering that the
impugned CBEC instruction dated 17.08.2011 provided that when
there has been adverse judgment in respect where
notification/instruction/circular or order has been challenged, the
decision should be contested irrespective of the amount involved in
the case and since the instant case relates to interpretation of the
notification and its applicability thereof, the decision of the Learned
Tribunal is erroneous in the facts of the case.
b) Whether the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the provisions of
sub-section 4 of Section 3 of Jute Manufacturers Cess Act, 1983,
which provides for applicability of Central Excise Act or Rules, in
relation to levy or collection on duty of excise on jute manufacturers
and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, provides for remission
by Commissioner in case of goods is lost or destroyed by natural
causes and as such when the assessee was duty bound to file
remission application before the Commissioner of Central Excise, in
absence of not undertaking such an exercise, the Commissioner
appeal cannot super impose its jurisdiction in holding that the
demand is not justified and as such the Learned Tribunal was not
correct in not deciding the matter on merits?
Heard Mr. Somnath Ganguli, learned standing counsel appearing for the
appellant/Revenue and Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent/assessee.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant has produced
before us the communication received from the department dated 26.09.2019
stating that this appeal may be withdrawn on the ground of low tax effect. The
said communication is placed on record and the appeal stands dismissed as
withdrawn on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently the substantial
questions of law are left open.
The stay application being IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No. GA/2800/2017
accordingly stands dismissed.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
s.pal/pkd
